As Abduction approaches its opening day, perhaps there’s more relevance than coincidence in the fact that Taylor Lautner has as many syllables as Bucky Larson. While one is fictional and the other isn’t (though I’m slightly hesitant to point out which is which), their respective films are currently tied in a deadlock at 0% on rottentomatoes. Carrying a 0 rating is virtually unheard of – even Shyamlan’s films come in around a dozen – so the fact that two films are currently vying not to be the quantifiable debacle of the early fall movie season is quite impressive.
It’s no real surprise that Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star is an abject flop. The previews alone dictated that the movie was worthless, and honestly, I can’t imagine that the local-car salesman-style promotion of the film would draw anyone in. There’s mockery and there’s stupidity. Bucky Larson doesn’t veer toward the latter; it usurps the definition, confirming the magnificently bankrupt creativity found within Happy Madison. Plus, with the exception of Boogie Nights, movies fail to significantly tackle the porn industry on film. Instead of looking at the politics, the transgression, the stigmas, most films resort to gimmicky gross-out humor that offers stale euphemisms for genitals and relies on the ignorant shock and awe of sticking a “Johnson,” “rod,” or “monster” in a “hoohoo,” “wahoo” or “lady part.” Moreover – and again with the exception of Boogie Nights – no one wants to watch a movie about porn; they want to watch porn.
Even though Abduction will eventually emerge from the cesspool beneath the dug bathroom in the basement of the dilapidating trailer, it doesn’t seem as if this movie will be any good either. Admittedly, it was not on my “to watch” list, so there is not a modicum of disappointment in this assessment, but the film itself looks confused – and that’s only with the casting. Taylor Lautner’s fame should be confined to movies where his dialog is minimal and the marketing is directed at young girls, and this is the inherent problem within the creation of Abduction: the inclusion of an actor that guys don’t want to watch in a genre that is not targeted to teenage girls.
Perhaps the thought process here would be that the young boyfriends would take their young girlfriends and Lionsgate would have two customers for the price of one. If you’re McDonalds, this is a fine strategy. The child wants a happy meal. The parents get hungry and nostalgic waiting in line and they eat a burger that they will work off at the gym. Unfortunately, this theory can’t be applied to Abduction; the teenage boys who accompany their girlfriends will not be able to work off their burning retinas, nor – most importantly – risk being spotted attending a movie that stars someone from Twilight – a movie that was most likely mocked and ridiculed by the droves of teenage males that Lionsgate hopes to bring in. Twilight might have reaped millions of dollars for its stars on a crap story with ridiculous clichés and terrible acting, but the connotations of the movie more closely resemble career paraquat.
If there are Twihards out there who read this, I’m sure they will be clamoring forth with sparkly dolls, ready to explain why Twilight is a brilliant love saga that changed their lives. At the same time, one look at the recent films – or at least the success they achieved — by Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson suggest that they don’t draw an audience. Even the rather entertaining and critically successful Adventureland was avoided by audiences, only earning 16million dollars – and this was a follow up to Superbad, a film that was equally successful critically and grossed 169million. The same can be said for The Runaways, a film no one saw.
Similar circumstances can be seen in the recent films of Pattinson, who was given a gift when cast in Water for Elephants a start studded film with two Academy Award winning actors. What’s more, it was adapted from a novel of the same name, and while flawed at times, it succeeds in “ultimately transforming a glimpse of Americana into an enchanting escapist fairy tale,” according to the New York Times Sunday Book Review. So, what went wrong? Well, the realization that Pattinson’s brooding grimace and plywood look that he dons in Twilight is less an act and more precisely a disposition.
As “1% Watch” commences, perhaps its best for the Twilight triad to take a step back, have a nice cold drink, and sip it slowly for the next generation.
